New York Times Says OpenAI Erased Potential Lawsuit Evidence

There’s a reason 400,000 professionals read this daily.

Join The AI Report, trusted by 400,000+ professionals at Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI. Get daily insights, tools, and strategies to master practical AI skills that drive results.

Sign up now for free and work smarter, not harder.

What do you get when a newspaper that built its legacy on Pulitzer-winning journalism collides with a tech giant reshaping the world with artificial intelligence? A messy, high-stakes legal drama.

The copyright lawsuit between The New York Times and OpenAI isn’t just about a few scraped articles. It’s about control, compensation, and whether innovation can justify cutting corners. As this case unfolds, it’s becoming clear that this fight represents something much bigger—a battle for the rules that will govern the AI industry for decades to come.

When Data Disappears

Let’s start with the bombshell that has set this courtroom drama ablaze.

The New York Times claims it spent over 150 hours combing through OpenAI’s training data to find evidence of copyright infringement. The process wasn’t straightforward—OpenAI’s training data isn’t exactly a well-labeled filing cabinet. Yet, The Times’ legal team pieced together their findings, organizing the data into evidence that could serve as the backbone of their case.

And then, as if plucked straight from a tech-world thriller, the evidence disappeared.

According to the Times, OpenAI’s engineers “accidentally” erased the curated data. OpenAI chalked it up to a glitch, but when the data was recovered, it was a chaotic mess—devoid of the folder structures and filenames the Times had so painstakingly created. For a paper that thrives on precision and order, this wasn’t just frustrating. It was catastrophic.

The Times had to start over, burning time and money on a process they argue OpenAI could have made much easier in the first place. OpenAI has insisted the deletion wasn’t intentional, but in the world of high-stakes litigation, even accidents can look suspicious.

Who Owns the Future?

The stakes here go far beyond one lawsuit. This case represents the tipping point in a growing debate: Should AI companies be allowed to scrape the internet and train their models on copyrighted content?

OpenAI, Microsoft, and their ilk argue that innovation requires vast amounts of data—publicly available, freely accessible data. After all, without mountains of text, ChatGPT wouldn’t exist. But publishers like The Times see it differently. Their journalism is a product of effort, talent, and time, and they’re tired of tech companies using it to build billion-dollar products without so much as a thank-you.

This isn’t just a theoretical debate. For publishers, the stakes are existential. They’ve watched as tech companies siphoned away ad revenue and readers for years. Now, their very content—articles, photos, headlines—is being used to train systems that could one day replace them entirely. Imagine a future where readers ask ChatGPT for the news instead of subscribing to The New York Times. For the paper, that’s not just a lawsuit—it’s a battle for survival.

The Legal Tangle

The courtroom drama itself is a web of accusations and counterarguments.

The Times wants OpenAI to come clean about how its AI models were trained. For the first time, OpenAI was forced to share portions of its training data, a rare look into the secretive foundation of generative AI. But The Times says the process has been plagued with technical problems, blaming OpenAI for making it nearly impossible to comb through the data effectively.

Meanwhile, OpenAI claims it’s doing its best to comply, calling the data deletion an honest mistake. Microsoft, OpenAI’s partner, has flipped the script by demanding The Times share how it uses generative AI tools internally—implying that the newspaper may actually benefit from the very technology it’s fighting against.

And let’s not forget the personal drama. The Times has requested Slack messages, texts, and social media conversations from key OpenAI figures, including former executives. The filing even mentions that one executive refused to turn over her personal cell phone. These demands highlight how high tensions are running.

What This Fight Means for All of Us

Here’s the reality: this lawsuit isn’t just about The New York Times or OpenAI. It’s about how we value creativity in an AI-driven world.

If The Times wins, it could force AI companies to rethink their entire approach to training data, possibly requiring them to pay for licensing deals with publishers. That sounds fair, right? After all, if AI companies profit from someone else’s work, shouldn’t the creators get a share?

But if OpenAI wins, it could cement a precedent that anything publicly accessible online is fair game for AI. That might accelerate innovation but risks eroding the creative industries that AI tools depend on. What incentive will journalists, artists, and creators have to produce new work if tech giants can gobble it up for free?

The outcome of this case will send ripples across industries, affecting everyone from small-time creators to multinational corporations. Will we end up in a world where AI companies hold all the power? Or will we create a system where creators are respected and compensated?

The Big Picture

At its core, this lawsuit is a question of balance. Can we foster innovation without undermining the value of human creativity? Can AI and journalism coexist, or is one destined to cannibalize the other?

One thing’s for sure: the decisions made in this courtroom will shape the future of how humans and machines interact. For now, we’re left with a tantalizing question—when creativity meets automation, who wins?